DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 5, this claim requires “using a second reduction gas”, however claim 1 from which Claim 5 depends, already requires a second reduction gas; therefore, an antecedent basis issue arises as it is unclear if the recited second reduction gas is intended to further describe the recited second reduction gas of claim 1 or if it is a separate gas, making the metes and bounds of the claims indefinite; claims 6-14 are rejected from their dependency on claim 5.
Regarding Claim 13, this claim requires a pre-reduction and end reduction zone, however claim 1 similarly already requires this limitation, therefore an antecedent basis issue arises as it is unclear if the pre- and end-reduction zones from claim 1 are being further limited or if these are separate zones.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bueno et al. (US6395055B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Bueno teaches s process for direct reduction of iron ore to sponge iron, (direct reduction of mineral iron, See Abstract)
wherein the iron ore passes through a reduction zone for reducing the iron ore to sponge iron (reduction reactor, Col. 2, Lines 5-10)
wherein the reduction zone is subdivided into a pre-reduction zone 12 (first stage) supplied with a first reduction gas 17 (Col. 2, Lines 10-19)
and into an end-reduction zone 14 supplied with a second reduction gas 18 (Col. 2, Lines 20-28) (See Fig 1)
wherein the first reduction gas has a different gas composition compared to the second reduction gas as the gas moves up from the first reduction zone to the second where the reaction in the bottom section forms a “high content of H2 and CO” (Col. 2, Lines 40-55); one of ordinary skill in the art would expect a significant difference in hydrogen volume from one section to the other to represent the “high” formation of hydrogen, more than the claimed 5% volume difference; alternatively on of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to ensure final conversion in the second region is as high as possible, forming as much hydrogen as possible including the claimed difference for the purpose of forming as much reduced Fe in the reaction Fe+CH4=Fe+2H2+CO as taught by the prior art.
Claim(s) 2-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bueno et al. (US6395055B1) in view of Boehm et al. (US20210246521A1).
Regarding claims 2-3, Bueno teaches injecting mixing gases by controlling percentages of reducing gas in the two zones of the furnace (See claim 9) where a first and second gas inlets may be supplied into the respective zones (Col. 5, Lines 14-20); the reducing gas of stage one (pre-reduction zone) are a mixture of CO and H2 (Col. 6, Lines 10-16); however, the prior art does not teach or suggest the reduction gas mixture consists only of hydrogen. However, Boehm teaches direct reduction of iron oxide material to iron sponge may be done with a reduction gas consisting at least predominantly of H2 (Abstract); therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify at least the reduction gas mixture of the first stage with a reducing gas consisting of hydrogen as a substitution of one well known reduction gas for DRI with another to predictably reduce iron oxide.
Regarding Claim 4, the inlet gas may be preheated to 650-950 C (Col. 6, Lines 60-65) reading on the claimed range of 500-1200 C.
Regarding Claim 5, the second reduction gas comprises CO, carbon monoxide, a compound of carbon and oxygen.
Regarding Claims 6-9, the reduction gas comprises CH4, a compound of carbon and hydrogen (Col. 7, Lines 8-12), and is considered to result in at least some carburization as taught by applicant in (Page 10 of the specification); since similar conditions are present which would result in carburization, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect a similar amount of carbon content on the sponge iron product under the expectations that products formed by similar methods have similar properties. (See MPEP 2112.01(I))
Regarding Claim 10, the inlet gas may be preheated to 650-950 C (Col. 6, Lines 60-65) overlapping with the claimed range of 700-1300 C.
Regarding Claims 11-12, the reactor comprises a shaft furnace and a cooling zone after the reduction zone cooled with cooling gas CH4 (See Col.7, Lines 7-12) (Fig 1) (ore moves down in a vertical direction)
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bueno et al. (US6395055B1) in view of Boehm et al. (US20210246521A1) as applied to claims 2-11 above, in further view of Shipley (US2752234).
Regarding Claim 13, Bueno is silent regarding the use of a fluidized bed reactor for the two zones; however, Shipley teaches a method of a continuous gaseous reduction of iron ore where a primary and secondary reactor may be used where fresh reducing gas is added to recover metallic iron (See Claim 2); therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the zones of Bueno to be fluidized bed reactors for the purpose of forming reduced iron in an efficient manner (Col. 1, Lines 30-45)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICARDO D MORALES whose telephone number is (571)272-6691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9 am- 4 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sally Merkling can be reached at 5712726297. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICARDO D MORALES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights